Saturday, May 30, 2009

Let me start this post off with bitching about something that is completely not related to this post. Remember this post I made last Monday? Where Peter King said no one in the Colts organization is worried about Howard Mudd and Tom Moore leaving the team because Peyton Manning is like a coach on the field? Well scratch that, because therehavebeen rumors that's not quite the case. Peyton is not happy with how things played out. My question is this...where the hell is Peter King with this new information? Why isn't he getting to the bottom of this? He is reporting on Tom Brady's recovery, telling us how great the Eagles' draft has been, and even taking choice quotes from the GM of the Colts Bill Polian about how things are not going to change with Moore and Mudd gone, but he doesn't take the time to comment or even acknowledge this story (as Friday afternoon). Why is that? He is too afraid it might make his original story sound wrong or is he afraid it may shine a bad light on Peyton or the Colts organization in a bad light? I would like to think he is going to wait until Monday to do a follow up, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.

This is a natural follow up column for Peter to do...like right now. This is why I have very little respect for him as an NFL reporter, because he only reports on who and what he wants to report on and I think he consciously tries to not write negative columns about certain teams and players. Brett Favre is clearly one of those people he tends to protect and I think he is trying to protect the Colts organization here. One and a half weeks ago he writes an organizational puff piece for the Colts and now the Utopia he presented is not completely true...and Peter King is missing to weigh in (as of Friday afternoon when I wrote this). So either Peter is consciously avoiding printing the negative information, did a crappy job of gathering information for his original column (which really there is no excuse for), he never interviewed Peyton Manning for the MMQB column or the Colts tried to keep this dissension away from him when he visited with them. Take your pick.

Now onto the column for the day. Calvin Watkins feels the need to re-write a story from the Associated Press and add his own spin to it. Spin being defined as "making small changes." Either way, I don't really blame him, at least he is not re-writing his old stories like Rick Reilly is doing. What else is there to say about Terrell Owens at this point? Different town, different team, same beginning, middle and ending.

Let's check out the T.O. and Buffalo experiment in its early "We are glad he is here and think he could be misunderstood, so we will convince ourselves he is misunderstood because the head coach is desperate to keep his job and we need to win games at some point or else we are all fucked" stage.

Terrell Owens is trying to smile these days.
He should because he now has 6.5 million reasons to live.I think it's a forced smile. He doesn't want to be in Buffalo. Nothing personal. Buffalo isn't Dallas. The Cowboys are where Owens wanted to be. The Cowboys are where Owens wanted to retire. But the Cowboys thought he was too much of a disruptive force to remain.
Here is my first problem with this article. After three different stints with three different teams, the Cowboys did not "think" that Owens was too much of a disruptive force, they KNEW he was a disruptive force. At what point can we stop acting like Terrell Owens very possibly could be misunderstood? He has played with three Pro Bowl quarterbacks, thrown three Pro Bowl quarterbacks under the bus, and complained about the same quarterbacks as he left town to go to a new city full of suckers.

The Cowboys did not think he was a disruption, they knew he was a disruption. They waived him accordingly based on this.

So, he was let go and now the Bills have to take his 1,052 receiving yards and 10 touchdowns from the 2008 season and hope he parlays that into more in the cold of Western New York.
They also hope he isn't at the top of the leader board in dropped passes again.

For that matter, Owens has to get it against New England where Shawn Springs, who has shut him down the last few years, is waiting for him.
Springs was waiting for him when he played in the NFC East for the past 5 years as well. This is really not that different for Owens.

Things will be different now for Owens. He has to compete in a tough AFC East where the Patriots and Dolphins know him well.
For the last three years he has been competing in the NFC East, which is as tough of a division, if not tougher, than the AFC East. Not to mention I would doubt the Dolphins and Patriots know Owens as well as the Philadelphia Eagles knew him when he played for the Cowboys, since he played for the Eagles for 2 years and was in the NFC East for 5 years overall. I don't think the Dolphins and Patriots know him as well as the NFC East teams do. So it's not like his level of difficulty in opponents he will face has increased tremendously, or possibly not increased at all.

It doesn't seem like things will be that much different for Owens. He is still in a tough conference but he is going against teams that actually may not know him as well as the NFC East teams did.

I find it interesting the three things that really are different are not mentioned. First, he won't have a Pro Bowl quarterback throwing him the ball, second, he is in a colder climate than he may be used to, and finally this is the first time there is an established potential #1 receiver on a team when he has joined that team. Lee Evans is still going to want the ball. As far the weather is concerned, I know Philly gets cold, but not quite as cold as Buffalo, plus Buffalo plans on playing even further north in Canada for a few games.

Following a Wednesday afternoon organized team activity, Owens sounded confident that building a strong relationship with Edwards wouldn't be a problem.
Owens has never had a problem building a relationship with a quarterback, it's keeping that relationship and not calling that quarterback gay or fat after he leaves the team that is a problem for him.

"Oh yeah, definitely, again, that's what the OTAs are about," Owens said. "Even with the rookies coming in, it's all about trying to see who plays well with what guys and the system.
Already Terrell Owens is brainstorming ideas of what to call Trent Edwards after this year. I have a feeling T.O. may say that Edwards was the worst quarterback he has played with since high school. I am probably wrong, it's so hard to guess what a bipolar person like Terrell Owens will do or say.

Owens built a nice relationship with Tony Romo in Dallas, but it died last year with the wide receiver griping about the type of throws he was getting and the direction of the offense. Owens was right about several things in the Cowboys' offense.
I don't think Terrell Owens was right about the Dallas offense. He just said that he needed the ball more and that the offense was not featuring him enough. Sure, he may have made some cryptic comments about how the offense was predictable, but he wasn't talking about overall, he was talking in reference (like he always does) to him, and when he gets the ball.

Even Romo, following the regular-season loss to the Eagles, said that the team's offense got exposed.
I will never make excuses for the Cowboys, but I really believe part of the problem with the offense is that many different people were calling for the ball and eventually Romo and Garrett tried to please everyone, which never works. I think the offense was simple and was exposed because teams knew who Romo was going to try and get the ball to, and when he would try to get the ball to a certain player. Certainly this is not all T.O.'s fault, but we can't overlook the fact other teams knew T.O. would get the ball at certain times or else he would pitch a fit when looking at the horrible offensive execution over the last couple of games.

There's no telling what Owens might say about Edwards, who isn't nearly as accomplished or talented as Romo.
He isn't nearly as accomplished or talented as any of the quarterbacks Owens has played with in the past. I am giddy to watch this all fall apart. Dick Jauron had better get his resume together. Not only is Owens going to want the ball at the expense of Lee Evans, he will probably find a way to tear the team apart in one year...which would be an incredible amount of destruction in such a short period of time, even for him.

"The last few years, the quarterbacks that I've had, I've communicated well with them," Owens said.
Yes, they have all been able to hear his public comments and criticisms after he left the team and when he was on the team they heard his constant whining for the ball, while seeing him ignoring the fact he dropped the ball a lot. This type of communication was definitely made.

I realize Owens is a talented receiver but there is never a time I would think his talent could overcome the amount of baggage he brings to the table, at least in my mind.

Romo was so tired of Owens that he wouldn't even say his name last week when asked about him."I could care less," Owens said. "I mean, he doesn't say my name, that's fine. What about it? Bill Parcells didn't call me by my name either, so what's the difference?"
Good point. There is no difference, because they both hate you.

The Cowboys are still the third-best team in the NFC East with or without Owens. The Bills got better with him but still remain behind New England and Miami in the AFC East.
You know, I realize the Eagles and Giants have done a lot in the offseason to improve the their respective teams, but I can't help but think the Cowboys are going to be a little bit more competitive than Calvin Watkins is giving them credit for. It may just be a hunch and I am not always great at predicting, but if they can establish a second receiver who can step up and play well, they have some pieces in place to compete in the NFC East.

He does help an offense and sell jerseys but he wears out his welcome in about three years. Buffalo signed him for one year and if Owens is to get another contract with the Bills or anyplace else he has to leave the Dallas stuff alone.
Which he has already shown that he can't seem to do.

Owens has to move on.
He will move on. He will move on to talking shit about Trent Edwards and trying to pull another team apart after his year in Buffalo is done. Whether he will pull Buffalo apart in one year remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past him.

Because the Eagles, Giants, and Redskins are in the East and the league did not want to disturb the natural rivalry they had with the Cowboys. I don't get it either. I think the Cowboys-Panthers would be a good rivalry because there are tons of Cowboys fans in this area, but the league did not want to separate them out from each other.

Then they decided they would force the Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, and Saints to become rivals. It hasn't worked incredibly well as of yet, except the Bucs and Panthers don't really like each other at all.

I don't want the Cowboys in the NFC South with the Panthers, but theoretically the divisions should be:

NFC East

RedskinsGiantsPanthersEagles

NFC South

FalconsBucsSaintsCowboys

The NFL is petrified of disturbing natural rivalries. Either way, T.O. has more experience in the NFC East than the AFC East, so his comparison between them, in regard to how well they know T.O., is not right.

I don't understand the NFL being terrified of losing the "natural" rivalries. People are going to stop watching cause the Cowboys don't play the Redskins twice a year? Thank Baby Jesus!! Seriously, there were some years in the 90's where Monday night Football would have like 4 of these NFC East matchups, and all I could think was "Geez, I'd like to see the Eagles-Dolphins". I don't care about "rivalries" when the division is bad, like say the NFC Central or AFC West right now.

The best games in the NFL, the highest rated, the huge buzz games, are always the games between the best teams, regardless of division or not. The biggest surge of NFL awareness among casual fans in teh country the last 25 years were the Bears-Fins game on Monday Night in 1986, and that Pats-Colts game a couple years ago. the 2nd one might have been hyped till yourteeth hurt, but there wasn't one single NFL fan I knew who was gonna miss that game. Trust me, the 86 game was jsut as big. This is what the NFL needs to remember, it's the games that matter, not the "rivalries". Rivalries matter to the team that sucks and is hoping for an upset to justify rooting for a crappy team. The better team has more important things to worry about.

I don't want to speak for the NFL but I think they kept the division together because of those rivalries. It is just my opinion really.

I think the NFL is just concerned with giving those fans the games they want to see every year. I personally don't watch the other games that I don't care about. I don't care to watch two teams I don't care about whether on national television or not. In college, sure I did, but it was just an excuse to drink on Sunday night and Monday night.

That Pats-Colts game was hyped up a lot but it didn't really bother me for some reason. The teams are what matter, if they are good teams that will play a good game. I think the league may know that but they also want to give the fans those rivalries. My favorite team has only been around for 14 years so we really have no rivals at this point, so that may affect my thinking.

By the way, I am watching the ass whipping of Cleveland at the hands of Orlando and they came back from commercial break with an obscure cover by REM called "Superman." I think Bill Simmons has to at least give them credit for pulling out an obscure song. Right?

Ben, thats a pretty good theory, as stupid as their reasoning might be. It just came up because me and my cousin were talking shit to each other (hes a jets fan*) and it somehow turned to the cowboys. Then we were trying to figure out how they ended up in the NFC east.

*For the record, he absoulutely hates everything about Brett Farve. Leon Washington is his boy.

Yeah, it is a theory that I completely made up as I was typing...sadly, I think that I am right as well. The NFL loves rivalry games and they don't really seem to care about geography too much when making the divisions up. That's why they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. At least I think so.

I would not be surprised if a lot of Jets fans don't like Favre. He was there only one year, not to mention I am sure a few fans blame him for the losing streak at the end of last year. Leon Washington fan huh? At least it is better than a Vernon Gholston fan.

It could be worse. Until a few years ago the Falcons, Saints, Rams and 49ers were the NFC West. Of course, when I was growing up, the Braves were in the NL West, too. Way to confuse your younger fans, professional sports.

Also, I think of Charlotte as more "south" than Dallas. I don't know. What about Arizona and San Diego? Aren't they pretty far south too?

I remember when the Braves were in the NL West and when the Falcons were in the NFC West. That was pretty stupid.

Geographically, I guess Dallas is further south than Charlotte but everyone does think of Charlotte as being more "South." Hey, the Colts are in the AFC South as well, so its a problem everywhere. This is what happens when you don't have four teams in the same region of the US I guess.

That's true...it is usually by season three he the team is actively attempting to disconnect the brakes on his car or release him.

I think the Terrell Owens signing by Dallas was a complete deal that Jerry Jones wanted. Bill Parcells would never have wanted Owens on his team. I can't imagine him ever dealing with Owens voluntarily.

Dubs, I posted the MMQB and it is so funny how he goes out of his way to say he has no news on Favre and then talks about him. He's obsessed at this point.

Why We're Here

Our pure joy in life is commenting on, criticizing and making fun of sports personalities, events and issues, mostly using run-on sentences and marginally correct grammar that encourages comments which agree or disagree in a separate opinion. If you have comments, concerns or would like to direct our attention towards an article, you contact us via email: